Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV10618, Date: 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV10618    Hearing Date: August 16, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            Defendant and Cross-Complainant SP Plus Corporation (“Defendant”) through its legal representative, William E. Jemmott (“Counsel”), moves to set aside the Court’s June 13, 2022 entry of dismissal dismissing Defendant’s cross-complaint.  The motion is unopposed. 

ANALYSIS

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), a court “may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” In addition, a court must vacate a default or dismissal when a motion for relief under Section 473, subdivision (b) is filed timely and accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect “unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)  

The party or the legal representative must seek such relief “within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b); see Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980 [“because more than six months had elapsed from the entry of default, and hence relief under section 473 was unavailable”]; People v. The North River Ins. Co. (2011) 200 Ca.App.4^th 712, 721 [motion for relief under section 473 must be brought “within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months”]).  “The six-month limit is mandatory; a court has no authority to grant relief under section 473, subdivision (b), unless an application is made within the six-month period.”  (Arambula v. Union Carbide Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 333, 340, citations omitted.) 

            Here, Plaintiffs advance Counsel’s declaration.  Counsel states that Defendant’s June 13, 2022 Request for Dismissal was not intended to be filed in this case.  (Declaration of William E. Jemmott, ¶ 4.)  Counsel avers that due to inadvertence, the wrong case number – that is, the case number for this matter - was entered on the June 13, 2022 Request for Dismissal, resulting in the request being erroneously filed here.  (Declaration of William E. Jemmott, ¶ 4.)  The Court finds Counsel demonstrates Defendant’s filing of the June 13, 2022 Request for Dismissal was due to inadvertence on his part. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to set aside the Order of Dismissal, and vacates the order of June 13, 2022, dismissing Defendant’s cross-complaint.   

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.